RTI Act losing its sheen with weakened machinery for its implementation.

Indu Pai 2nd BCom LLB 03FL21BCL038

SL PARTICULARS PAGE
NO NO

1. Abstract and Research Objectives 2

2. Introduction and Legal Framework 3

3. Challenges to Implementation 4

4. Reasons for the Weakening of RTI Machinery 5

5. Cases and most recent stories 6-9

6. Conclusion 10

7. Bibliography 11

1
 Abstract:
The Right to Information (RTI) Act in India has been a powerful tool for citizens to access
information held by public authorities. However, the implementation machinery of the Act
has been weakened over the years, leading to a decline in its effectiveness of the Act. This
research paper examines the reasons for the weakening of the machinery for implementing
the RTI Act and its impact on the transparency and accountability of governance. The paper
examines the legal framework of the RTI Act and the machinery for its implementation. It
analyses the various challenges faced by the implementation machinery, such as delays in
responding to RTI applications, lack of proactive disclosure, and the weakening of the
institutional framework for the implementation of the Act etc. The paper concludes by
making recommendations to strengthen the implementation machinery of the RTI Act and
to restore the effectiveness of the Act in promoting transparency and accountability in
governance.

Research Objectives:
1. Identify the factors that have led to the weakening of the machinery for implementing the
RTI Act.
2. Analyse the impact of the weakened machinery on the implementation of the RTI Act.
3. Develop recommendations for strengthening the machinery for implementing the RTI Act.

Keywords: Right to Information Act, implementation machinery, transparency,

accountability, governance, institutional framework, challenges, democratic accountability,
recommendations.

2
 Introduction
The rules and procedures for citizens' rights to information are outlined in the Right to
Information (RTI) act of the Indian Parliament. It replaced the former Freedom of
Information Act, of 2002. Any Indian citizen is allowed to request information from a
"public authority" (a government body or "instrumentality of state") under the RTI Act, and
that authority is required to respond quickly or within thirty days. In the event of an issue
including a candidate's life and freedom, the data must be given in 48 hours or less. In
addition, the Act mandates that every public authority computerize its records for
widespread dissemination and actively publish specific categories of information so that
citizens have as few options as possible for formally requesting information. On June 15,
2005, the Indian Parliament approved the RTI Bill, which took effect on October 12, 2005.
On average, over 4800 RTI applications are submitted each day. Over 17,500,000
applications had been submitted within the first ten years of the act's inception. In India, the
right to freedom of information is provided under statutory law, that is the Right to
Information Act 2005.1 The Right to Information Act 2005 provides for setting out the
practical regime of the right to information for citizens to secure access to information under
the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission
and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental
thereto.2

Legal Framework
The RTI Act in India provides citizens with the right to access information held by public
authorities. The Act requires public authorities to respond to RTI applications within a
specified time frame and imposes penalties for non-compliance. The Act also provides for
the establishment of Information Commissions at the central and state levels to oversee the
implementation of the Act. Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or
appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to
receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time
specified3 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
incomplete or misleading information or destroyed in- formation which was the subject of
any request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it will impose a
penalty of Rs 250 each day till the application is received or information is furnished, so
however, the total amount of such penalty will not exceed Rs 25,000.4

1
Volume 24, Halsbury’s Laws of India, Pg. 48 (Lexis Nexis Butterworth’s, New Delhi 2005)
2
S P Gupta V President of India, AIR 1975 SC 865.
3
Volume 24, Halsbury’s Laws of India, Pg. 68 (Lexis Nexis Butterworth’s, New Delhi 2005)
4
Right to Information Act 2005 s 20(1)

3
 Challenges to Implementation:
 Despite the legal framework, the implementation machinery of the RTI Act has been
weakened over the years. There are several challenges faced by the implementation
machinery, such as delays in responding to RTI applications, inadequate training and
resources, lack of proactive disclosure, and the weakening of the institutional framework
for the implementation of the Act.

 Delays in responding to RTI applications are a major challenge faced by the implementation
machinery. Many public authorities take a long time to respond to RTI applications, which
defeats the purpose of the Act. Inadequate training and resources for the staff responsible
for implementing the Act also contribute to delays and poor quality of responses.

 Proactive disclosure is an important aspect of the RTI Act, which requires public authorities
to disclose information on their own initiative. However, many public authorities do not
comply with this requirement, leading to a lack of transparency and accountability in
governance.

 The institutional framework for the implementation of the Act has also been weakened over
the years. The Information Commissions established under the Act are responsible for
overseeing the implementation of the Act. However, there have been several instances where
the Information Commissions have been unable to function effectively due to vacancies and
delays in appointments.

 Impact on Transparency and Accountability, the weakened machinery for implementing the
RTI Act has had a negative impact on the transparency and accountability of governance.
The decline in the effectiveness of the Act has resulted in a loss of trust in the

4
Reasons for Weakening of RTI Machinery
There are several reasons for the weakening of the RTI machinery and the implementation
of the Act. Some of the key reasons are discussed below:

Amendments to the RTI Act: The RTI Act has been amended several times since its
enactment. The amendments have been criticized for diluting the provisions of the Act and
reducing the power of the Central Information Commission (CIC) and the State Information
Commissions (SICs). For example, the RTI (Amendment) Bill, 2019, which was passed by
the Lok Sabha, proposed changes to the RTI Act that would have given the government
greater control over the selection and tenure of information commissioners. This would have
weakened the independence of the CIC and SICs and reduced their effectiveness in
enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Delay in Appointments: The appointment of information commissioners has been delayed

in recent years, leading to a backlog of cases and delayed responses to RTI requests. The
vacancies in the CIC and SICs have not been filled in a timely manner, leading to a shortage
of commissioners and a delay in the disposal of cases. This has reduced the effectiveness of
the RTI machinery in enforcing the provisions of the Act.

Lack of Awareness: There is a lack of awareness among citizens about the provisions of the
RTI Act and how to use it to seek information. This has resulted in a low number of RTI
requests and a lack of pressure on public authorities to comply with the provisions of the
Act. The lack of awareness has also led to a lack of public pressure on the government to
ensure the effective implementation of the Act.

Lack of resources: The effective implementation of the RTI Act requires adequate resources,
including infrastructure, human resources, and funds. However, many information
commissions in India have been facing a severe shortage of resources, which has hindered
their ability to process and dispose of RTI applications in a timely and effective manner.

Delay in appointments: The appointment of information commissioners has been delayed in

many states, leading to a backlog of pending RTI applications. The absence of information
commissioners also affects the disposal of second appeals, which are filed when an applicant
is not satisfied with the first response received from the public authority.

Non-compliance by public authorities: Despite the RTI Act's provisions, many public
authorities do not comply with the Act's requirements. Some authorities do not provide
information within the stipulated time frame, while others provide incomplete or misleading
information. This non-compliance undermines the effectiveness of the RTI Act and weakens
the machinery's ability to enforce the Act's provisions.

5
 CASES
On dated 04.6.2013, Smt. Rajalaxmi Das has filed a defamation case against Shri
Jagadanand (Mohanty), Information Commissioner in the State Information Commission
(SIC). Smt. Rajalaxmi Das, the wife of Shri Jayanta Kumar Das, has filed a petition with
the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, capital of Odisha, with a prayer to
punish him (Under Section 499 and 500 I.P.C) for using derogatory and defamatory
languages in his decision in the Second Appeal case No.- 439/2011 dated Feb 9, 2012. In
her petition, Smt. Rajalaxmi Das has mentioned that Sri Jagadanand (Mohanty), SIC has
illegally and without any relevance reflected the version of PIO in the order that her husband
is involved in a fraudulent land deal with many persons and was arrested in a criminal case.
She has claimed that this decision of Shri Jagadanand (Mohanty) is illegal, perverse, and
non-application of the judicial mind as it does not follow natural justice. Without hearing
the case from Appellant Shri Jayanta Kumar Das, Shri Jagadanand (Mohanty) recorded the
statement of the erring PIO and the same was also reflected on the order sheet which does
not come within the domain of the commission. She has alleged that Shri Jagadanand
(Mohanty) has passed the order with an oblique motive to malign the image of her husband. 5

The Odisha Information Commission has brought defamation cases against two RTI
activists in the civil court in Bhubaneswar, according to Pradip Pradhan, national co-
convener of NCPRI and convener of the Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan (OSAA), a
group of RTI activists, in an effort to curb rising activism. The well-thought-out plan to
render the Act useless is behind the assault on RTI advocates in Odisha. In order to damage
their reputation and minimize their job, the state apparatus and the mafias are collaborating,
according to Pradhan. In addition to humiliation, arrest threats, and fabricated court cases,
he continued, "Several RTI advocates pay the price for their advocacy as they are subjugated
to these practices.

Mr Narayan Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation6

The Commission observed him in dozens of the cases and found him misrepresenting the
matters very cleverly, hiding information, contradicting himself, etc. He takes every matter
to the first and second appeal, deliberately so that such attendance itself would harass the
officers. He drafts such RTI questions that at least half a dozen officers attend the first and
second appeals. It appears he has a property dispute with his brother Hoshiar Singh or some
other private vengeance. The Commission has seen many cases of misuse of RTI but, this
appellant is the worst among all and his vengeance against his brother has no bounds at all.
It is surprising that the DTC has not taken any steps to stop his blatant misuse of RTI. The
most severe abuse of the RTI Act was caused by his brother's repeated, repetitive, and

5
Defamation case against Shri Jagadanand, RTI Information of India, (10/06/2013),
http://www.rtifoundationofindia.com/defamation-case-against-odisha-information-
commiss#.ZBxoQ3ZBy3Alast visited on 16/03/2023
6
Mr Narayan Singh vs Delhi Transport Corporation (on 6 May 2015)

6
 vexatious requests about insignificant matters, which choked the DTC system. As a result,
the Public Authority is frequently contacted to respond to his pointless inquiries.
The personal information or third-party information of Mr Hoshiar Singh was the subject of
dozens of RTI requests and hundreds of questions. The appellant persistently pursues as if
he has no other business, causing PIOs, FAAs, and the Commission to spend time in a
criminal manner. 7

Neha Srivastava v. Trade Marks Registry 8

In this case, it was submitted that there are no provisions in the Act for the redressal of
grievances in the garb of seeking information. The Rules are to be read with the Act and in
no case can override the Act.

THE LATEST AND MOST CURRENT STORIES

When the RTI Act came into force on October 12, 2005, it was hailed as the “sunshine law”
which would make governments transparent and accountable besides empowering citizens
through their enhanced participation in democratic processes. Sadly, the shine has since
faded and public-spirited RTI users are a disillusioned lot today. Targeted attacks, threats,
and false criminal cases are what they must deal with now on a regular basis. 9
Amra Ram, a 30-year-old RTI activist from Rajasthan's Barmer district, stated, "The
misnomer that RTI activists are 'blackmailers' is the most painful of all the risks and
assaults." In December 2021, he was brutally attacked, breaking his hands and legs with
nails. According to reports, his persistent work exposing corruption in Kumpaliya panchayat
projects funded by the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA) was the trigger. Ram stated that "the police have yet to nab half the accused
persons" nearly a year after the attack.
According to People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) national president Kavita
Srivastava, In Rajasthan alone, more than a dozen RTI activists have been brutally assaulted
over the past ten years. Yet political parties are not concerned about it.

Nikhil Dey, a founding member of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information
(NCPRI) and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, claims that more than 100 RTI users have
been murdered across India in the 17 years since the Act was enacted.

7
Priya Rathi, Misuse of the RTI act,The Central Information Commission,
(17/09/2018)https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Misuse%20of%20RTI%20Act%20by%20Priya%20Rathi.pdflas
t visited on 16/03/2023.
8
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Neha Srivastava on 17 January 2019.
9
Ashutosh Sharma, RTI act losing its sheen with weakened machinery for its implementation, (17/11/2022)
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/right-to-information-act-losing-its-sheen-with-weakened-machinery-
for-its-implementation/article66115118.ecelast visited on 16/03/2023.

7
 A report on the effectiveness of information commissions was recently published by Satark
Nagrik Sangathan (SNS), a citizens' organization striving to support transparency and
accountability in administration. "The law has initiated the vital task of redistributing power
in a democratic framework," wrote Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri, activists affiliated
with the SNS and NCPRI, in the study. According to the study, India receives 60 lakh RTI
submissions yearly.
Millions of families are now more reliant than ever on the government for the provision of
essential products and services as a result of the (COVID-19) pandemic, high jobless rates,
and increasing inflation, it was noted.

The idea to amend the Right to Information Act through the Data Protection Bill has drawn
criticism from former information commissioners because it would completely exempt
confidential information from publication. Former Chief Secretary and CIC for
Maharashtra, Mr Ratnakar Gaikwad in a virtual press conference on December 13, Mr Rahul
Singh, the state information commissioner for Madhya Pradesh, Mr Yashovardhan Azad,
the former central information commissioner and retired IPS, Mr Shailesh Gandhi, the
former central information commissioner, and Mr Aatmdeep, the former information
commissioner for M. P., discussed the problem.
They expressed the opinion that the change would have a negative effect on the right of the
public to information. In his introduction to the subject, Mr Shailesh Gandhi noted that Bill's
amendment to Section 8(1)(j) will have a significant impact on the Right to Information.
Additionally, he told me that the definition of a person is also changing. He explained that
the Right to Information operates under the presumption that the public should have access
to any information that is available to the government.10

The information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no
relationship to any public activity or interest or which cause unwarranted invasion of privacy
of the individual, unless the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information
officer or the Appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public
interest justifies the disclosure of such information.11

10
Deepankar Malviya, Concerns about data protection bill amending RTI Act, (14/12/2022), Live law, Former
Information Commissioners Express Concerns About Data Protection Bill Amending RTI Act (livelaw.in)last
visited on 23/03/2023.
11
Volume 24, Halsbury’s Laws of India, Pg. 58 (Lexis Nexis Butterworth’s, New Delhi 2005)

8
 However, the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a state legislature
will not be denied to any person. 12
The disposal of a request under the Right to Information Act 2005 is carried out as provided
as, subject to the Right to Information Act 2005,13 the Central Public Information Officer or
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request 14 will, as
expeditiously as possible, and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either
provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request
for any of the reasons specified in the Right to Information Act 2005.15

12
Ibid 11.
13
Volume 24, Halsbury’s Laws of India, Pg. 55 (Lexis Nexis Butterworth’s, New Delhi 2005)
14
Right to Information Act, 2005 s 6.
15
Right to Information Act, 2005 s 7(1).

9
 CONCLUSION
In addition, there have been attempts to weaken the RTI Act through amendments to its
provisions or court rulings. For instance, the office of the Chief Justice of India is covered
by the RTI Act, with some exceptions, according to a 2019 Supreme Court decision. This
was considered by a larger number of people to be a mishap to the straightforwardness and
responsibility of the legal executive. Overall, it is true that the RTI Act is facing challenges
in its implementation, and the machinery for its implementation has been weakened in many
ways. However, it is important to recognize the significance of the RTI Act in promoting
transparency and accountability in governance and to work towards strengthening its
implementation machinery and ensuring compliance by public authorities.
To improve the function and working of the RTI Act, the following suggestions can be
considered:
 Enhancing the machinery for implementation: At the state and national levels, Information
Commissions need adequate resources and personnel to ensure that RTI applications are
processed promptly and effectively. This can incorporate expanding the quantity of Data
Magistrates and care staff, as well as giving sufficient foundation and preparation.

 Increasing capacity and awareness: The RTI Act and how to use it effectively must be made
more widely known to citizens. Workshops, awareness campaigns, and training programs
are all examples of this. Furthermore, public specialists should likewise be sharpened about
their commitments under the Demonstration and how to deal with RTI applications.

 Proactive disclosure: Public authorities should be encouraged to proactively disclose

information that is of public interest, even if it has not been specifically requested through
an RTI application. This can include putting information online or making it available in
public domains.

 Increasing the severity of the penalties: To prevent public authorities from delaying or
denying information or providing false or misleading information, the RTI Act's penalty
provisions must be strengthened. This might entail increasing the severity of the penalties
and ensuring that they are strictly enforced.

 Review and monitoring: Periodic reviews and monitoring of the implementation of the
RTI Act can help identify gaps and challenges and suggest corrective measures. This can
be done through regular evaluations and feedback mechanisms.

Overall, these measures can help improve the function and working of the RTI Act, promote
transparency and accountability in governance, and ensure that the Act is used for its
intended purpose

10
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books:

 Halsbury’s Laws of India, Volume 24, Media, Technology and Communication,

LexisNexis Butterworths, New Delhi 2005.
 V.K. Dewan, Exhaustive Commentary on THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005
(ed 3, 2021)

Websites:

 https://www.livelaw.in (visited on 23rd March 2023)

 www.thehindu.com (visited on 16th March 2023)
 www.rtifoundationofindia.com (visited on 16th March 2023)
 https://cic.gov.in/sites (visited on 16th March 2023)

11